the original team of contributors in a project ends up squeezing out any knowledge from outside the core group

the Field of Dreams trap: “Don’t assume that if you build it, they will come.” There was no incentive for anyone to invest time and energy to solve other people’s problems

no process to monitor the quality of the written contributions

expecting new technology and reengineering of processes to produce a collaborative, sharing culture, where the company’s greatest need was not new technology but a culture modification program to prepare for a KM initiative

Management says they want it, but everything they do is opposed to it

belief that professional standing depends on what you know that others don’t

Technological incompatibility : each file had to be translated to a spreadsheet before transmission

A respected head of KM at a large multinational consulting firm, who had her budget cut to nothing by senior management

Defining knowledge within functions or silo-oriented communities of practice does not work. Instead define knowledge at the level of business processes.

forgetting that a knowledge management initiative must relate knowledge to people’s day jobs.

Attempting to apply Information Technology to tacit knowledge. This is fraught with difficulty. Instead, it is explicit knowledge that is most susceptible to the application of Information Technology.

Failure to carefully manage external input to knowledge management initiatives managed to ensure people within the organization are in control of the initiative at all times.

Failure to understand the organization’s willingness to change and to manage people’s expectations appropriately.